Re: Summary of (dis)agreements on latewst FastCode developments
- From: "Avatar Zondertau" <avatarzt@xxxxxxxxx (please reply to newsgroup)>
- Date: 15 Jun 2005 10:08:30 -0700
This seems to be an effecitve way of settling differences; the list of
disagreements has been greatly reduced.
> > > Caption is inconsistent with our naming conventions.
> >
> > Please be more specific. Is it the caption of the form or the tab?
> > What do
> you think it
> > should have been?
>
> Mainform caption = IntToStr Benchmark & Validation Tool for Fastcode
> Version y.x
Currently the form caption says "FastCode Benchmark and Validation
Utility" and the tabs say "<<(sub)challenge name> (v<version>)". ISTM
all the information is in there.
> > Currently old results are replaced by new. I can change this. How
> > do you think it
> > should be? Minimum in the list on the main form and all runs in the
> > report?
>
> Or all runs everywhere?
Ok, fine with me too.
> > > I would like to see all subbench results in main report as normal.
> >
> > They are there in the report. You can display them on the main form
> > by right-clicking a column header and selecting "subbenchmarks".
>
> I mean in the main report window on the mainform as in the old days.
The listview on the main form is currently that main report window,
replacing the richedit that was used before. It can display the
subbench results by enabling their columns, though by default they are
hidden. IMHO this view provides most clarity, while it's still possible
to get the complete view.
You really think subbenchmark column ought to be shown by default?
> > > How do I save results to a .csv?
> >
> > There is no such feature yet, because appearently i didn't notice
> > it in your original B&V. I can add it.
>
> Very important feature.
Ok, i will look into it (when i have time) and try to make a CSV export
function compatible with the old one.
> > > I miss a close button on main form.
> >
> > I don't miss it; i always use Alt-F4 or the upper-right-corner
> > cross. It's trivial to add one though if you really like it.
>
> Please do - it will help me and hurt nobody.
Ok.
> > > Include 4 versions of functions with different alignment
> >
> > Like you said yourself somewhere: this should be done in a stable
> > release, not now yet.
>
> Do it in the last release before 1.0.
Ok
> > I'll try to maintain Delphi 5 compatibility wherever it isn't
> > harmful to other versions.
>
> Are all the changes completely invisible when compiling/running under
> D6-D2005?
Depends on how invisible you want the to be. From the compiler POV the
only difference is that CPUID and RDTSC have now been coded using DB
statements (but with comments indicating what the opcode is).
>From the programmer POV there are also some conditional compilation
directive, but they are few and IMHO do not harm readability.
> > > We normally sort the results so that the winner appears at the
> > > top.
> >
> > On the main form results can be sorted on any column, in both
> > directions. ISTM this is nicer than just sorting on total benchmark
> > score always.
>
> Yes, but sort after benchmark with the winner at the top as default.
It can be made default.
> > > All functions released by Fastcode must pass all validations. We
> > > do not want bug reports on known issues.
> >
> > Running the large validations is not feasable for now, while stuff
> > still changes. It simply takes too much time. IMHO it should be
done
> > when a stable B&V is released.
>
> But remove functions that fail.
AFAIK the B&V currently has no functions that fail simple validation.
Failers on the thorough validation will be removed from the list (and
their authors notified) once that test is done.
> > I think results are more useful if you see multiple log lines
> > reporting failures. This may allow the writer of the failing
> > function to see what values are failing and
> > is therefore more useful then getting only one result.
>
> Ok A matter of taste. I just fix bugs in the order they are caugth by
> the validation. They all have to be fixed anyway. My errortrap gives
> the possibility of putting a breakpoint in it and step into the
> failing function with the parameters that made it fail.
Ok, i haven't seen it yet. It might be a nice addition.
> > > Yes. I sometimes do that also to get all 4 kinds of alignment for
> > > RTL code.
> > > (But we are not allowed to due to license issues?)
> >
> > I was hoping someone would tell me, because i'm not sure. Replies
> > on this point are very welcome, especially if they would come from
> > Borland.
>
> Just do it but tell nobody ;-)
LOL.
That's no solution however. It seems reasonable that Borland allow us
to do that, especially because they benefit from the FastCode project
themselves too. Perhaps you could send an e-mail to the guys at Borland
you know? They may be cooperative and then at least we'll know for sure
what's permitted and what's not.
> > > Normally I use the fastest function to set the subbenchmark
> > > weigths. I think we should continue doing that. Also I normally
do
> > > it on a P4 which is just as incorrect as doing it on a Dothan. We
> > > should use blended results as is done in Move.
> >
> > I wasn't sure of the way you did it and didn't have a P4 to test
> > them, so i just did what seemed right. I guess this is another
thing
> > that should be done once the stable release is released.
>
> They must be correct in the 1.0 release. We must do a complete set of
> benchmark runs on all targets to get it rigth.
Yes.
Do you think we should keep the current scales until then, or is it
neccesairy to already calibrate the scales so that they are based on
the fastest function (be it on only one CPU) instead of the RTL
function?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Summary of (dis)agreements on latewst FastCode developments
- From: Avatar Zondertau
- Re: Summary of (dis)agreements on latewst FastCode developments
- From: Dennis
- Summary of (dis)agreements on latewst FastCode developments
- Prev by Date: Re: New release of IntToStr and Sort Benchmark and validation tools
- Next by Date: Re: IntToStr v0.7 on attachments
- Previous by thread: Re: Summary of (dis)agreements on latewst FastCode developments
- Next by thread: Re: Summary of (dis)agreements on latewst FastCode developments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
